public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from June 2015 by date

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

• TopBraid Composer 5.0 beta with SHACL support Holger Knublauch

Friday, 26 June 2015

• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 25 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors

Thursday, 25 June 2015

• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Arthur Ryman
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Arthur Ryman
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 June 2015 Dimitris Kontokostas
• Regrets for 25.06.2015 Simon Steyskal
• shapes-ISSUE-72 (QCRs): Qualified Cardinality Restrictions [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 June 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics with negated recursion Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics with negated recursion Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-71 (Protocol): SHACL Endpoint Protocol [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 18 June 2015 Arthur Ryman
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Arthur Ryman
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 June 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Core SHACL Semantics: Probable Typos Arthur Ryman
• Core SHACL Semantics: Inference Rules Arthur Ryman
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics with negated recursion Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Irene Polikoff
• Re: Core SHACL Semantics - More Abstract Syntax Questions/Comments Arthur Ryman
• Core SHACL Semantics: SImple vs Complex Shapes Arthur Ryman
• Core SHACL Semantics - More Abstract Syntax Questions/Comments Arthur Ryman
• Core SHACL Semantics - Abstract Syntax Bugs Arthur Ryman
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Karen Coyle
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Arthur Ryman
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Holger Knublauch
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Arthur Ryman
• Re: Recursion in RDF Data Shape Languages Arthur Ryman

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

• Re: SHACL: A language for multiple platforms Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL: A language for multiple platforms Dimitris Kontokostas

Friday, 19 June 2015

• Re: SHACL: A language for multiple platforms Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL: A language for multiple platforms Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Using sh:scopeShape within And/Xor/Not/OR Constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: Using sh:scopeShape within And/Xor/Not/OR Constraints Simon Steyskal
• shapes-ISSUE-71 (Protocol): SHACL Endpoint Protocol [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: proposal for ISSUE-47 - no required access to the shape graph Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-70 (blank node default type): special treatment of blank node types [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL: A language for multiple platforms Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-70 (blank node default type): special treatment of blank node types [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-69 (rdf:langString): status of rdf:langString values with xsd:string datatype [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 18 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors

Thursday, 18 June 2015

• SHACL: A language for multiple platforms Holger Knublauch
• Re: proposal for ISSUE-47 - no required access to the shape graph Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 June 2015 Holger Knublauch
• Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 Holger Knublauch
• Re: Using sh:scopeShape within And/Xor/Not/OR Constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-6 - status of scopes on shapes and constraints Holger Knublauch
• proposal for ISSUE-47 - no required access to the shape graph Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL Specification Fragment (ACTION-27) Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 June 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 June 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) Arthur Ryman
• ISSUE-6 - status of scopes on shapes and constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Using sh:scopeShape within And/Xor/Not/OR Constraints Simon Steyskal
• Re: Using sh:scopeShape within And/Xor/Not/OR Constraints Holger Knublauch
• Using sh:scopeShape within And/Xor/Not/OR Constraints Simon Steyskal
• F2F4 Venue information Iovka Boneva

Wednesday, 17 June 2015

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 June 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch

Monday, 15 June 2015

• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Holger Knublauch
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Sunday, 14 June 2015

• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Holger Knublauch
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch

Friday, 12 June 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL Specification Fragment (ACTION-27) Holger Knublauch
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Dimitris Kontokostas
• shapes-ISSUE-68 (pre-binding): pre-binding not defined in SHACL spec [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: a path towards implementing the way forward Arthur Ryman
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: bypassing the WebEx insane web interface Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 11 June 2015

• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: bypassing the WebEx insane web interface Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: zakim and webex and attendance Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: a path towards implementing the way forward Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Dimitris Kontokostas
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 11 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: a path towards implementing the way forward Arthur Ryman
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Holger Knublauch
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Holger Knublauch
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: bypassing the WebEx insane web interface Arthur Ryman
• ISSUE-67: Http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/66 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: a path towards implementing the way forward Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• zakim and webex and attendance Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• bypassing the WebEx insane web interface Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: a path towards implementing the way forward Arthur Ryman
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Simon Steyskal
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Wednesday, 10 June 2015

• Re: a path towards implementing the way forward Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-64 (XSD Datatype facets): Should the Core vocabulary support datatype facets such as sh:minInclusive and sh:maxLength? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: a path towards implementing the way forward Arthur Ryman
• Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 Arthur Ryman
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-52 (labra): Define an Abstract Syntax for SHACL [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-66 (ill-founded): SHACL should not be ill-founded [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 11 June 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 11 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 11 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• resolving ISSUE-47: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Peter Patel-Schneider
• Re: update to SHACL-SPARQL (ISSUE-62) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• SHACL Specification Fragment (ACTION-27) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ISSUE-66 (ill-founded): SHACL should not be ill-founded [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 4 June 2015 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) Arthur Ryman

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 4 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Dimitris Kontokostas

Monday, 8 June 2015

• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch

Monday, 8 June 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• on shape recognition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: tracker not tracking emails to the working group mailing list Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: tracker not tracking emails to the working group mailing list Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• Re: on constraints (ISSUE-65) Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 6 June 2015

• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Tom Johnson

Friday, 5 June 2015

• Re: on constraints (ISSUE-65) Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on constraints (ISSUE-65) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 4 June 2015

• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• Re: on constraints (ISSUE-65) Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• on constraints (ISSUE-65) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• on constraints (ISSUE-65) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ACTION-27: Write outline of semantics document fragment RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Tom Johnson

Wednesday, 3 June 2015

• Re: tracker not tracking emails to the working group mailing list Arnaud Le Hors
• [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 4 June 2015 Arthur Ryman
• tracker not tracking emails to the working group mailing list Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 4 June 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: editing SHACL specification document or fragment Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• new use cases for clinical data (multi-occurance) and OneOf Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: editing SHACL specification document or fragment Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: update to SHACL-SPARQL (ISSUE-62) Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

• Re: update to SHACL-SPARQL (ISSUE-62) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-65 (shapes, scopes, and constraints): A consistent and cohesive definition of shapes, scopes, and constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Monday, 1 June 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-60 (Other Extension Languages): Shall SHACL support other extension languages beside SPARQL (like JavaScript)? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: update to SHACL-SPARQL (ISSUE-62) Holger Knublauch
• Re: [an aside on JavaScript] Re: shapes-ISSUE-60 (Other Extension Languages): Shall SHACL support other extension languages beside SPARQL (like JavaScript)? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: implementing today's resolution Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-65 (shapes, scopes, and constraints): A consistent and cohesive definition of shapes, scopes, and constraints [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-60 (Other Extension Languages): Shall SHACL support other extension languages beside SPARQL (like JavaScript)? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [an aside on JavaScript] Re: shapes-ISSUE-60 (Other Extension Languages): Shall SHACL support other extension languages beside SPARQL (like JavaScript)? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: update to SHACL-SPARQL (ISSUE-62) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: implementing today's resolution Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [Editorial] Issues/Home page cleaned up Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-64 (XSD Datatype facets): Should the Core vocabulary support datatype facets such as sh:minInclusive and sh:maxLength? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: update to SHACL-SPARQL (ISSUE-62) Holger Knublauch
• Re: implementing today's resolution Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Last message date: Tuesday, 30 June 2015 23:56:15 UTC